A Review of the Los Angeles Basin Plan Administrative Record
by Susan Paulsen and John List, 2003
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides a detailed analysis of the administrative record as provided to date of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Los Angeles Region. The administrative record as reviewed consisted of thirty-six boxes of materials provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This study was undertaken over the past year to review national and state water quality regulations and policy documents, and to assess regulatory compliance actions within the Los Angeles Region for conformity with these policies and regulations. In particular, this study evaluated the designation of beneficial uses, the establishment of water quality objectives, and the implementation of the Basin Plan in the NPDES permitting process, the TMDL process, and other regulatory actions.
This review confirms that many concerns about water quality regulation on a national level are relevant and valid within the Los Angeles Region. The issues raised in this report have, in many cases, been raised repeatedly and have remained largely unaddressed since the development of the first Los Angeles Basin Plan in 1975. Many Basin Plan elements are found to lack a solid technical and scientific foundation and were not necessarily adopted in a manner that achieves the highest level of reasonable water quality protection consistent with California’s Porter-Cologne Act. In addition, the existing Basin Plan regulatory framework and process frequently fail to identify and address the true sources of water quality degradation and impairment. Unless remedied,
the deficiencies identified in this report render the Basin Plan vulnerable to significant legal and technical challenge and may result in the expenditure of public funds in exchange for little improvement in water quality.
Four priority areas for Basin Plan reform are identified in this report, including the following:
Incorporation of the Porter-Cologne Section 13241 and 13242 Requirements. The administrative record reflects substantial public concern that Basin Plan criteria and associated implementation programs have not been developed with adequate reference to the factors required by Porter-Cologne Sections 13241 and 13242. Section 13241 provides a framework for attaining the highest quality of water which is reasonable in consideration of economics, housing, and water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved, among other factors, while Section 13242 provides implementation guidelines. Compliance with these sections is required by California law and is essential to assure that public resources are allocated in a sensible, reasonable manner and to build and maintain support for water quality protection. Existing and future Basin Plan water quality standards and programs of implementation should be explicitly assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 13241 and 13242 prior to implementation in waste discharge requirements and TMDLs. Where the cost or other statutory factor impacts, such as housing, are likely to be significant, the RWQCB should provide a detailed rationale for any regulatory programs it wishes to pursue. Evaluation of these factors is especially important prior to the application of water quality standards to nonpoint sources, as the Porter-Cologne factors were not evaluated for nonpoint sources when water quality standards were established.
Development and Implementation of Water Quality Objectives. The administrative record shows that certain water quality objectives have been adopted in the Basin Plan that will require significant expenditures and controls, even though natural, ambient conditions contribute to or cause regulatory exceedances, and even though risk of harm is minimal under certain conditions. Significant issues include the Basin Plan bacterial, sediment, and mineral quality objectives. Water quality objectives that are known or likely to be influenced by natural or ambient conditions should be reassessed, consistent with Porter-Cologne Section 13241, to determine the extent to which regulation of human activities can measurably and usefully foster reasonable water quality protection. In addition, water quality objectives should be reassessed to ensure that they are based upon a sound scientific foundation and clearly defined in terms of frequency, magnitude, and duration.
Correction and Revision of Beneficial Use Designations. To a significant extent, the Los Angeles Basin Plan contains beneficial use designations that do not reflect actual or probable future beneficial uses and/or reflect uses that are illogical and contradictory. The criteria and framework used to create and apply beneficial use designations is often unclear. Examples include municipal and drinking water supply (“MUN”) designations, recreational (“REC”) use designations for limited or no-access flood control channels, and “potential” uses. New designations or water body categories, such as for flood control or effluent-dominated waters, should be added to reflect the actual, intended purpose of many regional water bodies. Where natural sources prevent attainment of water quality criteria, or where conflicts exist between the applicable beneficial uses and water quality criteria, seasonal or tiered uses and/or site-specific objectives should be created.
Revision of the “Tributary Rule.” As reflected in the administrative record, the Basin Plan tributary rule has recently been interpreted to include even minor, ephemeral drainages and storm flow channels, and the beneficial uses of any water body identified in the Plan are applied to its tributary streams. This policy has been adopted with virtually no consideration of the Porter-Cologne statutory factors and with little reference to applicable precedent. Further, a strict interpretation of the tributary rule may be unnecessary, especially in cases where dilution occurs or where pollutants are removed or modified during transport. The tributary rule should be revised to reasonably protect designated beneficial uses without extending, at enormous potential expense, regulatory requirements to each and every ephemeral drainage and stormwater conveyance pipe in the Los Angeles watershed.
